Comparison of Bronchial Artery Embolisation Versus Conservative Treatment for Bronchiectasis-Related Nonmassive Haemoptysis: A Single-Centre Retrospective Study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and effectiveness between bronchial artery embolisation (BAE) and conservative treatment for bronchiectasis-related nonmassive haemoptysis patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 2015 to December 2020, consecutive bronchiectasis-related nonmassive haemoptysis patients who underwent either BAE (n = 98) or conservative treatment (n = 118) were included. Treatment-related complications, length of hospital stays, clinical success rate, patient satisfaction, and recurrence-free survival rates were compared between groups. Prognostic factors related to recurrence were also analysed.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up time of 44.8 months (range, 2.4-83.6 months), 34 and 66 patients in the BAE and conservative treatment groups suffered relapse. The 1-year, 2-year, 3-year and 5-year haemoptysis-free survival rates in the BAE and conservative treatment groups were 79.2%, 68.1%, 62.8%, and 57.6% and 64.0%, 52.8%, 44.1%, and 37.0%, respectively (P = 0.007). The minor complication rate after BAE was higher than that after conservative treatment (23/98 vs. 12/118, P = 0.008). BAE was associated with shorter hospital stays (5.0 vs. 7.0 days, P = 0.042) and higher patient satisfaction (88.8% vs. 74.6%, P = 0.008) than those for conservative treatment and with comparable clinical success rates (95.9% vs. 91.5%, P = 0.192). Treatment type, haemoptysis duration, and bronchiectasis severity were independently significant predictors of recurrence for these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

BAE could be another option for bronchiectasis-related nonmassive haemoptysis patients. In the patients with longer duration and more severe bronchiectasis, BAE still appeared to have better long-term haemoptysis control than conservative therapy.